Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Jackson should not have replaced Faulk this year

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 2
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 template Next
  • #1

    Jackson should not have replaced Faulk this year

    This guy is a rebel. He thinks he can do everything on his own. Marshall is smarter and better than Steven Jackson.

    On the 4th and 2 play, all the blockers went to the left. The play was designed to go to the left. FOR SOME REASON, Jackson decides to give up on that, and "stop", and cut back to the middle. If he just keeps going behind the blockers, he get's the first down.

    Give him the ball? Why?

    He needs to shut his big mouth and learn how to be a running back in this league. There have been numerous mistakes this guy has made at critical times.

    HE SHOULD NOT HAVE REPLACED MARSHALL FAULK. He should have been the situtational guy to come in and get more experience. I hope he learns, but I'm starting to think he will just be a frustrating dissapointment.

    We can't even trust him to follow the play call. We can't trust him to get 1 freeking yard because he will abort the play, and try to "cut back". Sure if there's a wide open hole, he looks like he could be great, but who doesn't when there's a hole?

    @#%[email protected]%J%$#%)"(#$U%
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Jackson should not have replaced Faulk this year

    Oh, please.

    The switch to Jackson was about age and the fact that Faulk has had multiple knee injuries. He's not perfect, but he's the Rams' top back right now.

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Jackson should not have replaced Faulk this year

      Originally posted by AvengerRam
      Oh, please.

      The switch to Jackson was about age and the fact that Faulk has had multiple knee injuries. He's not perfect, but he's the Rams' top back right now.
      Well Said.
      temp_4394_1467243487543_20
      RAMS!

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Jackson should not have replaced Faulk this year

        Marshall was the one who told MM he thought Steven Jackson should start. If Faulk was the one who started the season, he would probably be on injured reserve right now.

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Jackson should not have replaced Faulk this year

          Originally posted by AvengerRam
          The switch to Jackson was about age and the fact that Faulk has had multiple knee injuries.
          Not to mention it was initiated by Faulk, who I trust knows more about our running game and personnel than internet message board fans, including myself.

          This is Jackson's 16th start as a pro. He's still going to make mistakes, and the cut back on fourth down was clearly a big one. But I wonder where these sentiments were late in October when Jackson gained 316 yards on 49 touches with three touchdowns?

          Marshall Faulk, had he been the feature back this season, probably would not be playing right now. He'd be talking to Roland Williams and Jerametrius Butler on the sidelines, and contemplating how much football he'll be able to play in 2006. There's a reason this switch was made, and it baffles me when people say things like "I hope he learns" but at the same time don't want him to see the kind of experience that will facilitate that learning.

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Jackson should not have replaced Faulk this year

            I agree that he makes some bonehead decisions concerning cutting backs. I wish that he would just follow his blocks (or lack thereof). He could make 3 yards per carry if he just fell forward with his size and speed. However, as stated, Faulk just can't do it on a week to week basis anymore with his knee problems. I guess that this is his time to learn and get better. With a season like this one, it is a perfect time to get Jackson and Fitz some much needed experience when the team's record is of no concern...

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Jackson should not have replaced Faulk this year

              Originally posted by SFCRamFan
              I guess that this is his time to learn and get better. With a season like this one, it is a perfect time to get Jackson and Fitz some much needed experience when the team's record is of no concern...
              Good point in that it's certainly one of the few positives you can take away from a season like this - you have to believe some of our young players are getting valuable experience this year that will make them better in the years to come.

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Jackson should not have replaced Faulk this year

                Come on. Yeah he makes his mistakes. The O-line makes a lot more. The guy is still going to go over 1,000 yards this season, and he's ran hard today. Lay off and give him time to learn

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Jackson should not have replaced Faulk this year

                  He made stupid mistakes, and he heep doing it, this is his second year, but... did he earnt the right to argue with the HC about his role on the offensive team. I believe he has talent and the switch was right (I would have liked to see more marshall this year) but he has to keep his mouth shut and try to gain some more yards

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: Jackson should not have replaced Faulk this year

                    I see nothing wrong with him asking for the ball. If the team wont give it to him, why not ask for it. Receivers do it all the time.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: Jackson should not have replaced Faulk this year

                      faulk is far from being washed up.........He might of seen the Oline play still being as bad as it has been!..I've seen the disgust on Marshalls face on more than 1 running play!.......MM has his faults for suring up the Oline!

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: Jackson should not have replaced Faulk this year

                        i dont want to say this, but i believe faulk will head elsewhere next year!!!!!!!! he still has some juice left in him and i beilieve he wants to play still

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: Jackson should not have replaced Faulk this year

                          Originally posted by bruce_wannabe
                          i dont want to say this, but i believe faulk will head elsewhere next year!!!!!!!! he still has some juice left in him and i beilieve he wants to play still
                          I'm really not buying into this speculation. One, Faulk agreed to an extension here in the offseason, which he probably wouldn't have done if he didn't want to be here. And two, if Faulk still wanted to play, why take himself out of the starting role? I would find it hard to believe that the coaching staff would refuse to play Faulk if Marshall went to them and said he wanted to be in the game more.

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: Jackson should not have replaced Faulk this year

                            I think Marshall wanted a more secondary role as the Running Back. Not a non-existent one. I think he pictured he would get his HOF numbers and records over these next two years and ride off into the sunset, but he's only had like 3 touches per game.

                            What a waste. I guarantee you he thought he'd play more than he is playing. And I bet he thought SJ would play better than he is playing. But when Marshall comes in it looks like we have a running game again. When Jackson is it, it's like there's a wall.

                            and who cares if he would be on injured reserve right now...I bet the Rams would have more wins.

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: Jackson should not have replaced Faulk this year

                              Originally posted by sbramfan
                              and who cares if he would be on injured reserve right now...I bet the Rams would have more wins.
                              Great attitude. Who cares if Marshall Faulk gets injured to the point where it ends his season, so long as the Rams win! :up: :tut

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 template Next

                              Related Topics

                              Collapse
                              • Guest's Avatar
                                I think everyone should stop with their BS story about Faulk not wantin to play more.
                                by Guest
                                Faulk may have went to management and told them it was time to make a change because he is good hearted and they chose a RB with their first over all pick.
                                How many players anywhere in the NFL would go to management and tell them to play some one else ahead of them none is the answer because they are all after the dollar but not Faulk he wants to see the kid get a chance and succeed. But Faulk still has a lot of game left in him and if Jackson ever went down with an injury and they had to play Faulk you would see that I can honestly say Jackson has helped contribute to our losing season with his no gain runs and getting two QB's blown up by bad blocking both Bulger and Martin were the victims of his poor blocking.

                                Faulk has a lot of game left and this was the first off-season in a long time he did not have to have surgery. He is as healthy and as good as he has been in a long time. I guarantee you if I had to win a game I would take Faulk over Jackson as my running back. Once Faulk saw they drafted a RB he knew he did not have a lot of years left and he knew they had to play the #1 RB in the draft pretty quickly and that is why I believe he said they should play him. Because how would people feel if Faulk played good and we did not start Jackson for another 4 years they would all be wondering why we spent such a high pick on someone that sets on the bench.


                                Nick Faulk did it for the team and Jackson no one else in the NFL would have done what he did. Faulk may have thought at the time that Jackson might be able to handle the starting job and knowing that they selected him so high they would have to play him soon. Faulk is today better then Jackson. He is as healthy as he has ever been.
                                -12-11-2005, 10:25 PM
                              • ramsanddodgers
                                Faulk on SJax
                                by ramsanddodgers
                                From PFT.........
                                -08-18-2008, 07:56 PM
                              • argpdt
                                Rams Owe Marshall Faulk Playing Time
                                by argpdt
                                I find it disgusting the way that the Rams are "utilizing" Marshall Faulk these days. The past 5 or 6 games Faulk is getting very few on field plays with even fewer touches. I think that now that the season is over, the Rams should let Faulk start and see if he brings anything to the running game. Steven Jackson may be the back of the future for the Rams, but his performance has helped contribute to this lost season. When Jackson catches the ball he can be a threat, but he doesn't make people miss in the open field like Faulk either running or receiving, and Jackson has looked like he has hands of stone on far too many passes.
                                Faulk needs less than 40 yards receiving to be #1 all time amongst NFL RBs and the Rams owe him that honor.
                                :helmet:
                                -12-06-2005, 03:38 PM
                              • AvengerRam_old
                                How should S.Jackson be utilized?
                                by AvengerRam_old
                                After seeing him in the preseason, what do you think the Rams should do with Jackson?
                                As good as he's looked, he's not ready. Let him watch Faulk.
                                4.35%
                                1
                                Faulk's still the man. Jackson should be a short yardage specialist.
                                8.70%
                                2
                                While Faulk is still No. 1, Jackson should spell him and get 10-15 carries per game.
                                56.52%
                                13
                                The Rams need to use Jackson and Faulk in a 2 back set.
                                21.74%
                                5
                                The future is now! Jackson should start and Faulk should be a 3rd down back.
                                0.00%
                                0
                                The future is REALLY now. Start Jackson and trade Faulk.
                                8.70%
                                2
                                -08-30-2004, 01:20 PM
                              • AvengerRam_old
                                Like Warner, If Faulk's Not Faulk, A Clean Break Is Needed
                                by AvengerRam_old
                                And so, my friends, I fear we find outselves in somewhat familiar territory.

                                A star player who helped the Rams win their only Super Bowl is potentially at a point of decline and it is questionable whether he can ever play at a level close to what we remember from 1999-2001.

                                Behind him is a young, promising player who many feel is ready to step in and take over.

                                If Faulk knee is not healed, and he can't be the feature back, the best thing for the Rams is to let him go and move on. Steven Jackson has the potential to be a feature back as a rookie. Even if he's not and never will be Marshall Faulk, if Marshall can't be either, he shouldn't be played because of nostalgia.

                                Its the nature of the beast. Great players don't last forever.
                                -07-10-2004, 08:25 PM
                              Working...
                              X